Name And Address Supplied wrote:


> > > > > > > Note that John Edser wrote:
> > > > > > > Within Hamilton's rule the two fitnesses
> > > > > > > being compared are inclusive fitness
> > > > > > > (rb) and Darwinian fitness implied as
> > > > > > > as just the cost (c).

> > > > > > NAS:-
> > > > > > This is wrong. Conventionally, inclusive
fitness is r b -
> > > > > > c, not r b.

> > JE:-
> > Then "Hamiltonian fitness" is not
> > "inclusive fitness". Please provide
> > the fitness label that you now argue
> > denoted one rb fitness total
> > within Hamilton's rule.

> NAS:-
> Something like 'inclusive fitness benefit', perhaps? 

JE:-
You mean that you really expect sbe readers
to believe that nobody, including Hamilton 
himself, never ever defined a _biological_
term for the multiple rb within Hamilton's 
rule?

> > JE:-
> > Any relative fitness is a comparison.
> > Any subtraction is just a comparison.
> > What was being compared is what was being
> > subtracted. What was being subtracted
> > here, is c from rb.

> NAS:-
> No, c is subtracted from baseline fitness (call it K), and r b is
> being added.

JE:-
The missing fitness K,
remains the key to Hamilton's
conundrum. Is this why it has 
remained invisible within the 
rule? I insist it becomes explicit
within the rule so the Darwinian
doors can be unlocked.

In the meantime:
Please define the ghost baseline
fitness K that has remained hidden
for over 50 years within the rule and 
then provide a term that describes what 
K means within any science of biology.

The middle step where "c is subtracted 
from baseline fitness (call it K), and 
r b is being added" makes absolutely
no difference since, as you CONCLUDE....

> NAS:-
> The net effect is r b - c, ..

JE:-
Thus rb remains compared to 
c within the rule, no exceptions.

>snip<

> > JE:-
> > ERGO: rb and c were
> > the ASSUMED fitness TOTALS being compared
> > within the rule were rb (the HAMILTONIAN total)
> > commonly referred to as "inclusive fitness"
> > and c, the cost of b. This c cost is the
> > total cost IN DARWINIAN FITNESS to the
> > actor.

> NAS:-
> You are extremely confused, John. rb is not a fitness total, it is a
> component of fitness, or more precisely, a component of marginal
> fitness. c is another component. 

JE:-
Your BIOLOGY is extremely confused.
Once again you have failed to translate
mere mathematics into a VALID BIOLOGY.
The multiple rb is the only finite 
fitness total that can represents
Hamilton's _competing_ fitness (which 
you insisted was never even given a 
biological term).

> > JE:-
> > NOTE: all these values are just
> > variables. Not a single constant exists
> > within the rule.

> NAS:-
> They are not variables, they are functions.  
> dw/dx = r[x] b[x] - c[x] 

JE:
In the science of biology r, b
and c remain variables.


> > > > > JM:-
> > > > > This is also wrong.  At least as Hamilton defined 
> > > > > inclusive fitness in
> > > > > 1964.  He defined it as something like (K + rb - c), 
> > > > > where K would be
> > > > > the fitness that an organism would have if all social
> > > > > interactions were
> > > > > excluded (and the costs of those interactions).

> > JE:-
> > The above constitutes Hamilton's fumble.
> > This failed attempt to include an explicit
> > absolute fitness general term within his rule
> > so that the rule could make biological sense
> > proved fatal.
> > When the absolute fitness of the actor
> > is explicitly included within the rule
> > then:
> > 
> > 		rb > K
> > 
> > 	where:
> > 
> >  K = Darwinian fitness of the actor.

> NAS:-
> This just doesn't make sense, John.

JE:- 
You obviously have no idea of
the overriding importance of K
(Darwinian fitness)
when it is explicitly included
within Hamilton's rule.

_______________________________________
IF any donor donates ALL of its resources 
to recipient/recipients which would 
have otherwise enabled that actor to raise 
a maximal total of infertile forms it 
would have reproduced itself to fertile 
adulthood THEN it can only raise zero of 
its own unless it is supplied with a 
"free lunch", i.e. such an actor is always 
sterile like.
______________________________________

Please indicate if you understand/do
not understand, this extremely simple 
argument.

> > JE:- 
> >  This is not an ESS (evolutionary stable
> >  strategy) because the actor becomes
> >  sterile like. 

> NAS:-
> What?

JE:-
Any population of sterile like forms
becomes extinct.


> > JE:
> > However, only this ONE case proves
> >  organism fitness altruism within nature.
> >  All cases of Hamilton's rule without K
> >  remain ambiguous because the rule cannot distinguish
> >  between a reduced donation and an investment.
> >  This being the case the rule without K remains
> >  _biologically_ meaningless even if the _maths_
> >  is valid.

> NAS:-
> If K represents what I think it is meant to represent (i.e. a baseline
> fitness) then I cannot make sense of what you are saying, John.

JE:-
Please read what I wrote.
I don't expect you to like
it but I do expect you to
understand it as testable
BIOLOGY.

I defined K as the Darwinian
fitness of the actor.


Regards

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser{at}tpg.com.au
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/6/04 5:39:21 PM